Is this equivalent to an XP service pack?

Yeap. But Apple and their hardcore fans wouldn't admit it. For them, it's a merely an update with more features.

no - the update actually does what it says and doesn't break everything else

Not sure I understand your comment. If you're referring to the SP2 firewall blocking some apps, then give me a break. I work in the corporate world and we were warned months in advance that SP2 would ship with the firewall enabled. We took the required measures, rolled it out to 400 PCs, and had no problems.

No, Apple isn't charging for it.

This kodak camera I have lying around agrees with you.

error

I'm curious, what happens when they hit 10.4.9, and they don't want to release a 10.5 yet?

10.4.10, version numbers don't follow math...hence the double decimal points. Or they brag about how their "next" version is free.

I would bet 10.4.10.

So far Apple hasn't gone past .9. 10.2 only went up to .8 I believe and 10.3 only went up to .9. 10.3.9 actually came out after 10.4 did as well.

FYI, they won't need to get so close to 10.4.9, because 10.5 ('leapord,' right?) is coming up very soon. They're going to announce/preview it to the public in august.
But if they did want to go beyond 10.4.9 and not hit 10.5, I'm sure they could go with 10.4.10 like the other user said, or go with 10.4.9.9.9.1 if it suits them, because as far as i'm concerned there are no rules for these crazy version numbering schemes.

Yeah, that's true...I always laughed at those crazy version numbers Macromedia picks.

"8,0,24,0"
"9,0,16,0"

Actually, I wonder if their next one will be "10,0,8,0"?

Thought OSX is perfect?

idiot. grow up.

haha someones buttons got pushed.

Better leave the thinking to people with brains.

so not you right?

Just installed it. Looks pretty good.

Always good.

Microsoft could learn a lot from Apple, such as security authentication. Microsoft are having a lot of difficulty getting the balance between U.A.C ( User Access Control )and usability correct in Vista. Surely there's something to be learned from Apple on how to handle security?

apples and oranges. Apples doesn't have have to worry about security (to the same level as MS) at this point due to a very small market share. I think OSX has around a 2.5% to 2.8% market share while Windows has 95%+. The result being that even through both OSs have potential security problems, Apple doesn't have the visibility to make hacking worthwhile.

That's beside the point. OSX just has a very nice UAC because it uses the standard Unix 'sudo' for it, and it works well. It's safe but not intrusive. The thing is, in OSX, it's built in the fundamentals, in Vista, it's an afterthought.
And your argument that hacking OSX is not worthwile is invalid, proven by the hundreds of attempts to hack my mac every day. None succeed, although I'm running ssh and a webserver on it.
Windows sux, OSX is good. Now go away!

ha your running a webserver on osx? hahha

and you spelled sucks wrong.

I'm not a computer geek, so the webserver slight on OSX is lost on me. There isn't a great deal of differences between the two OSes in terms of the applications that they can run. Win XP I hate, but think that Vista may be better as soon as the UAC problem is sorted, although I doubt it as it still uses the NTFS. Unix is far more stable, but I would have liked to see how WinFS would have turned out

and you spelled "you're" wrong.

I think the argument of Unix being more stable than Windows is an old argument. I work as an IT director for a medium-sized company and have used various flavors of Unix and Windows over the past 10 years. During the NT days, I would argue that Unix (AIX/Solaris) were more more stable. But, MS has come A LONG WAY since then. Windows Server 2003 was the beginning of what I consider MS's move into the credible world of corporate computing. 2003 offfers a great combo of ease of use and stability. Actually, it's rock solid and is MORE reliable than my Mandrake and Redhat machines that running in the adjoining rack. Server 2003 is also secure. I get hits everyday from various hackers and haven't suffered a breach yet - but I have a firewall appliance and I'm smarter than most people.

If Vista is built on the same codebase then I think we'll see great things from the desktop OS.

And your argument that hacking OSX is not worthwile is invalid, proven by the hundreds of attempts to hack my mac every day. None succeed, although I'm running ssh and a webserver on it.
How do you know they are hacking attempts. If they are in the hundreds daily, then it makes me wonder. How many real world hacking attempts against mac webservers actually check to see if they are hacking a mac in the first place, or just blindly assume the only options are linux/windows?

That is where the market share everyone claims is unimportant comes into play.

the webserver slight on OSX is lost on me

While it has admittedly been awhile since I last checked, the last time I checked Macs only worked good as webservers when there was only one or two connections/clients. More than that and performance went in the proverbial toilet. And this was with Mac's server version of OS X.

Also on that note, if Vista is just a stepping platform to another OS in 2008, I would wait to see what happens.

No one wants to use a stepping stone OS, remember Windows ME and what a disaster that was?